🧠 When Perspectives Stir the Field

Controversial PLOS Computational Biology Perspectives and Why They Matter

While PLOS Computational Biology is best known for rigorous research, its Perspective pieces often invite debate precisely because they ask uncomfortable questions or challenge widely held assumptions. Unlike research articles that report new data, perspectives are meant to provoke — and some have done just that.

In this post, we explore three such pieces:

1. “The Specious Art of Single-Cell Genomics” — Tara Chari & Lior Pachter (2023)

2. “You Are Not Working for Me; I Am Working With You” — Florian Markowetz (2015)

3. “The Problem with Phi: A Critique of Integrated Information Theory” — Michael A. Cerullo (2015)

Each comes from a different corner of computational biology — methodology, academic culture, and theory — yet all have sparked discussion.

---

1️⃣ 🔬 “The Specious Art of Single-Cell Genomics”

Authors: Tara Chari & Lior Pachter (2023)
Published: PLOS Computational Biology 19(8): e1011288.

This article challenged a standard analytical practice — namely, the near-ubiquitous use of extreme dimensionality reduction (to 2D) for visualizing and exploring single-cell genomics data.

🌪️ The Controversial Claim

The authors argue that the typical workflow — reducing thousands of features down to two or three dimensions with tools like t-SNE or UMAP — is not just imperfect, but intrinsically flawed:

“…extreme dimension reduction, from hundreds or thousands of dimensions to 2, inevitably induces significant distortion of high-dimensional datasets.”

In essence, they assert that popular low-dimensional embeddings may be counter-productive and can distort biologically meaningful structure. Their conclusion challenged the intuition and practice of many in the single-cell community, where colorful 2D plots often dominate analyses.

📊 Why This Stirred Debate

• Method vs. Interpretation: Many practitioners use 2D embeddings not as final results but as exploratory visualization tools. Critiquing their validity as biological evidence touched a nerve in a community conditioned to rely on such visuals.

• Distortion vs. Utility: Saying that embeddings can distort data questions their role in inference, not just visualization — an assertion many users had not deeply considered.

• Prompted Correction: The article later warranted a publisher correction in 2025 related to data availability — an unusual post-publication development for a perspective piece.

This mix of methodological critique and post-publication correction kept the conversation alive beyond the typical lifespan of a perspective.

---

2️⃣ 👩‍🔬 “You Are Not Working for Me; I Am Working With You”

Author: Florian Markowetz (2015)
Published: PLOS Computational Biology 11(9): e1004387.

Unlike the first article, this perspective doesn’t critique number-crunching methods — it tackles lab culture and mentorship in science.

💬 What It Argues

Markowetz reflects on running a computational biology research group, and emphasizes collaboration over hierarchy. He writes about moving from the antiquated model where junior researchers are assumed to work for the lab director, toward one where leaders and team members work with one another:

“Florian works with you on your projects.”

Though this seems harmless at first glance, the article stirred discussion because it upended the traditional PI-centric view of academic labs and opened space for conversations about how scientists should lead and develop their teams.

🧩 Why It Resonated (and Raised Eyebrows)

• Cultural Pushback: Many scientists are trained in hierarchical labs. Advocating for a collaborative, bottom-up approach was (and remains) a departure from tradition.

• Leadership Politics: By mixing professional advice with philosophical positions on academic hierarchy, some readers saw the article as idealistic or out of touch with the pressures of funding, tenure, and competitiveness.

• Beyond Computation: This piece reached beyond methods into laboratory sociology, a space that can be polarizing because it touches personal experience and institutional power.

Though not overtly confrontational, its tone and recommendations sparked conversation and reflection.

---

3️⃣ 🧠 “The Problem with Phi: A Critique of Integrated Information Theory”

Author: Michael A. Cerullo (2015)
Published: PLOS Computational Biology 11(9): e1004286.

Here, the topic shifts from data and culture to theory — specifically, a challenge to Integrated Information Theory (IIT) of consciousness.

📌 What It Attacks

IIT, developed by Giulio Tononi and others, proposes that consciousness is equivalent to a mathematical quantity called integrated information (Φ). Cerullo’s piece argues:

The main theoretical argument … is called into question by the creation of a trivial theory of consciousness with equal explanatory power.

In other words, he suggests that IIT’s foundations lack justification and that the theory does not succeed in quantifying consciousness in a meaningful way.

🧠 Why This Is Contentious

• Crossing Disciplines: A computational biology journal publishing a critique of a philosophical and neuroscience theory is itself unusual. Not all readers expected or welcomed this outside-the-box engagement.

• High Stakes: Consciousness theories are deeply debated in neuroscience, philosophy, and psychology. Challenging IIT — already controversial — pulled computational biology into broader interdisciplinary disputes.

• Implicit Debate: By engaging with foundational questions (“What is consciousness?”) rather than direct computational practice, the piece invited commentary from outside both core communities.

---

🧩 What All These Pieces Reveal

Taken together, these perspectives illustrate that controversy in science isn’t just about data — it’s about:

• Methodological assumptions (What tools should we trust?)

• Scientific culture (How should scientists work together?)

• Foundational theory (What concepts are legitimate objects of study?)

Notably, PLOS Computational Biology has explicitly stated that its Perspective articles are intended to invite debate and further comment — and these pieces succeeded in exactly that.

---

📣 Final Thoughts

Controversy in science is not a bug — it’s a feature. It encourages deeper reflection, sharper awareness of our assumptions, and dialogue across disciplines. Whether you agree with these perspectives or not, each has contributed to ongoing conversations that shape how computational biology evolves.